Bloody images of Muammar Gaddafi's corpse on the front of both the Guardian website and the newspaper brought forth many complaints from readers, and some from staff. Nearly 60 readers wrote to the readers' editor or the letters page to condemn use of the images as gratuitous, exploitative or triumphalist; many others posted comments online.

Several wondered, as one put it, "about the relative frequency with which pictures of white and non-white corpses are published; to me the latter seem disproportionate". A strong theme was a sense of moral repugnance at the use of the photos and video – that somehow the Guardian was complicit in the act and that to view the images was demeaning.

One reader wrote: "I have your newspaper as my homepage on my computer. I am a faithful reader who enjoys your angle on the news. However, today I am shocked and disgusted by the horrific images of a mangled corpse and people gloating over it that confront me … If you must air these images, at least bury them with a warning as to their gruesome nature so I needn't have my soul polluted by this horror-porn should I not wish it."

Commentator Mark Lawson, in a piece published on the Guardian website within 24 hours of Gaddafi's death – and later in the paper – argued that the images should have been kept off front pages, saying: "Even presidents, Bill Clinton once pleaded, deserve a private life. Even tyrants, I would argue, deserve a private death." He also suggested there is an obligation "imposed on editors (by such organisations as the PCC and Ofcom) not to cause unnecessary or unheralded offence to sensitive consumers". Whatever Ofcom's duties, that obligation does not, in fact, feature in the 16 articles of the Press Complaints Commission's codes addressing the use of violent images.

Similarly, there is nothing in the Guardian's editorial code to guide editors deciding what images to use and in which circumstances. It is an editorial judgment on the day. This is not a new dilemma, although the digital age has exacerbated the potential for distress. When photos of the corpse of Benito Mussolini hanging upside down were widely distributed at the end of the second world war, they were not accompanied by assorted videos taken with mobile phones.

When the Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was shot with his wife Elena on Christmas Day 1989, their corpses were seen by television audiences all over the world. Five years ago, when the Guardian published photographs of Saddam Hussein after he was hanged, more than 200 complaints were received.

In the case of Muammar Gaddafi, the first images went up on the Guardian website around lunchtime on Thursday 20 October. Complaints arrived within the hour. Senior newsroom staff discussed use of the images. The consensus was that these were crucial news pictures that showed the manner of the Libyan leader's death – a brutal act which readers would recognise as something that could not be put in soft focus. Other news organisations came to a similar decision on the day, although by Friday morning more of a split was evident within the media over the use of the photos.

Ian Katz, the Guardian's deputy editor in charge of news, believes it was "emphatically right" to use the pictures. For editors, he said, it was a case where the importance of the photo in news terms outweighed the repugnance factor. In addition, "these images [were] absolutely everywhere, and in particular on all rolling TV news and bulletins", so the idea of shielding people was unrealistic. "If I have one reservation," Katz said, "it is that the original image may have been too large, which perhaps added to the feeling some had that it was gratuitous."

At the time I agreed with the Guardian's decision to publish. On reflection – and having read the complaints – I feel less convinced about the way we used these photographs, although I still feel strongly that they are an important part of this story and should have been used. The scale of the photo on the newspaper front page of 21 October and prominent picture use on the website took us too close to appearing to revel in the killing rather than reporting it. And that is something that should feature in our deliberations the next time – and there will be a next time – such a situation arises.